Mission Statement:
To help restore the proper relationship between our officials in Washington and the citizens of our nation, between bearing our own burdens and bearing one another’s burdens, among competing interests, and to promote the ideal of “doing all that is necessary to achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Friday, November 5, 2010

Israel's 9/11 Opportunities

This is part 4 of a 4-part series on motive, means, and opportunity in the false-flag attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To assign guilt in a criminal investigation, one must find out who had the motive for the crime, the means of committing the crime, and the opportunity to commit the crime.

In part 1—“September 11’s Lucky Winners”—I described many ways that Israel benefited from the attack. Benjamin Netanyahu even went as far to say that 9/11 was "good for Israel." I also showed that Israel not only benefited from the attack; I laid out proofs of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks.

In part 2—“The ‘Official Story’ of 9/11: A Fairy Tale”—I proved that the nineteen Middle Easterners accused of the 9/11 attack could not possibly have done what they were accused of doing. The words Official Story, in the title, are placedin quotation marks because of my discovery that there's often a stunning difference between what the corporate media tell us that the 9/11 Commission Report says and what the 9/11 Commission Report actually says.

In part 3—“Suspicious Timing: More Evidence of Israeli Prior Knowledge and Planning of 9/11”—I showed that an Israeli front group, supposedly formed in response to the needs of the post-9/11 world, had been formed several months before 9/11. I also proved that the group's leadership considerably overlapped with the leadership of the Project for the New American Century—the neoconservative group whose position papers cited the need for “a new Pearl Harbor” in order to bring about the changes they desired.

Now we come to part 4: “Israel’s 9/11 Opportunities,” in which I show that most of the opportunities for bringing about the events of 9/11 were in the hands of Israelis and Americans who fronted for Israelis. High-level American officials had the power to help cover up the crime (here), but only Israel and their henchmen had the opportunities to carry out the crime every step of the way.

What excuses did President Bush, de facto President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice—the unholy trio who lied to the American public over 90 times to get us into an illegal war in Iraq—and their allies make? They made two excuses:

1. It was a failure of imagination; that is, (as Rice put it) no one could have foreseen that someone would use a commercial airliner as a bomb. 2. The Bush Administration had relied too heavily on technology.

The first excuse was disproven almost as soon as it was uttered. Terrorist Ramsey Yosef proposed it in 1993, and Philippine intelligence conveyed the message to the CIA. The CIA studied the possibility that same year. In 1994, author Tom Clancy described such an event as this in his book Debt of Honor.

In 1996, the movie TheLong Kiss Goodnight was about a false-flag terrorist act killing a projected 4,000 people and blaming it on the Muslims. (Click here for video clip.)

On March 4, 2001, television director Chris Carter chillingly portrayed the events of 9/11 several months before they took place. In the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, an X-Files spin-off, high-level government officials in the intelligence community used remote-control technology to electronically hijack an airliner, intending to crash it into the World Trade Center and blame it on the Arabs.

In 2003, the Bush Administration admitted that, on the morning of September 11, 2001, a war games scenario was taking place which posited the use of hijacked commercial airliners as flying bombs. (Click here.)

So much for a “failure of imagination.” What about the over-reliance on technology? Who controlled the technology?

Whoever pulled off 9/11 had to have had the means to get nineteen misfits through security screening. Who was in charge of security at those airports?

Whoever pulled off 9/11 had to have had the means to prevent America’s military pilots form following normal procedure by scrambling as soon as the airliners veered off course. Who designed the technology on which the military relied for that purpose?

Ground controllers were confused by computer-simulated planes as a result of the war games that were taking place at the same time as the hijackings. Several orders were given to delete those signals, but the problem continued until after the real terrorist attacks were over. Who designed the program they were using—the program that made it impossible for air traffic controllers to tell where the real airliners were?

Who was in charge of security at the World Trade Center up to the day it was destroyed? Who was in charge of port security at New York Harbor? Who designed other security systems that facilitated the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Demonstrating who had the technological opportunities to bring about 9/11 leaves me with two unpleasant options. Either I can refer you to the research others have done, or I can, so to speak, try to re-invent the wheel by copying their research. To save both you and me the trouble, I’ll refer you to what others have found.

The answer to all these questions and more can be found in the Vatic Project article “Israel Did 9/11: All the Proof in the World.” In support of Vatic’s findings, here is an article from the web site What Really Happened, showing that Israelis were in control of security at all three of the airports involved in 9/11. More recently, Vatic has uncovered evidence that the 9/11 mastermind was Dov Zakheim, a reputed dual-citizen Israeli who was well positioned for several opportunities to effect 9/11. I mention this particular video because it addresses one question that “All the Proof in the World” didn’t address: Who designed and marketed the technology that made it possible for airliners to be electronically hijacked (a standard safety feature on all commercial airliners for several decades)? Until Zakheim began working for the Pentagon, he was the CEO of the company that designed and marketed the software that made it possible to precision guide commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. (Click here.)

There you have it. The Israelis, with their long history of false flag attacks, benefited most from 9/11. Muslims gained nothing but suffering, death, rejection, and ruin from it.

By the Bush Administration’s admission, 9/11 happened because America’s over-reliance on certain technology. At every turn, that technology was either designed by, or controlled by, Israelis. They, and only they, had the means and the opportunity to use the technology necessary for bringing about the events of 9/11.

People who are prone to cry, “Conspiracy theorist,” will undoubtedly say that what I’ve written in this series of articles contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. It doesn’t. Of the 585 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, only 13 pages describe the Commission’s version of the hijacking. Only 86 pages describe events that occurred that day. Mostly, the 9/11 Commission Report is about terrorism in other parts of the world. Pages 325 through 585 are devoted entirely on anti-terrorist strategies for the future. Bear in mind that the Bush Administration had resisted calls for any investigation of 9/11 at all. Only public outrage and demand led to the 9/11 Commission convening 441 days after the attacks had occurred. By contrast, the Monica Lewinsky investigation began less than two weeks after the news broke. Some $100 million was spent on the Lewinsky investigation, as compared to $14 million for the 9/11 Commission. Even a glance at the table of contents is enough to convince you that the real purpose of the Report was to justify the Bush Administration's war on American liberties and the U.S. government's illegal intervention in other countries.